7 ms·

Note that the court ordered the defendants to comply by removing the GPL code from their product, not to comply by publishing their source code. [0] [0] https:

Note that the court ordered the defendants to comply by removing the GPL code from their product, not to comply by publishing their source code. [0] [0] https://www.dynamic.ooo/press/groundbreaking-acknowledgment-of-free-software-in-italy/# https://www.dynamic.ooo/press/groundbreaking-acknowledgment-... Edit: Link changed to press release w/ copy of court's order.

hannasanarion 5y ago
T̶h̶a̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶t̶r̶u̶e̶.̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶l̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶t̶r̶a̶d̶i̶c̶t̶s̶ ̶i̶t̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶d̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶"̶b̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶f̶t̶w̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶i̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶i̶c̶e̶n̶s̶e̶"̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶r̶e̶m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶G̶P̶L̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶o̶n̶e̶n̶t̶s̶,̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶c̶k̶n̶o̶w̶l̶e̶d̶g̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶G̶P̶L̶ ̶r̶e̶q̶u̶i̶r̶e̶s̶.̶ Don't mind me, just being a dummy :)
- bdowling 5y ago
  Thanks. A statement of the court's order was included in the "press release" link, not the link I originally posted. Link updated. > The Judge, considering the articles 156 I.d.a. and 700 c.p.c., > Orders the defendants (Marco Poglie, Francesco Pesce and Nerds Farm Srl) to cease any use made available to the public, as well as any publications, of the software named E-addons for Elementor, if not after having eliminated every recurrence (exception made for a maximum amount of 500 lines) of the code included in the 1.9.5.2 version of Dynamic Content for Elementor, sub doc.2 produced by the Applicant, within seven days of the communication of this provision. https://www.dynamic.ooo/press/groundbreaking-acknowledgment-of-free-software-in-italy/# https://www.dynamic.ooo/press/groundbreaking-acknowledgment-...
  - edoceo 5y ago
    I don't understand the exception. Like less than 500 line chunks of GPL can stay? Or only chunks that are 500 or less must be removed in the time allowed?
    - aulin 5y ago
      From the italian version I understand max 500 lines of GPL code can stay... not sure about the reason, it can be quite a lot of code
  - jaclaz 5y ago
    Only for the record (and IANAL), the second reference (Art.700 Codice Procedura Civile) is only related to the possibility - pending immediate financial loss - to get an accelerated/quick judgement. The decision lies on the first reference (Art. 156 Legge sul diritto d'Autore - Law on Author's rights), which is Legge 22 aprile 1941 n. 633: http://www.interlex.it/testi/l41_633.htm http://www.interlex.it/testi/l41_633.htm interestingly, the objects protected were originally literature, music, arts, architecture, theatre and photos/movies (and was later extended to include computer programs, television, etc.).
- fsckboy 5y ago
  what he said is true, and therefore what you said is less than true. the GPL requires source corresponding to distributed binaries be released. They distributed GPL binaries and they have not been required to release the source. They are allowed to make future binaries which are not GPLed, but the users of the GPLed binaries have not had their right to see the source satisfied.
  - bdowling 5y ago
    > ...the users of the GPLed binaries have not had their right to see the source satisfied. That's the intent of the GPL (GPL v3 Preamble) but it's not an outcome that a license can guarantee. A copyright license can only be enforced using copyright law, and the remedies for copyright infringement are limited to monetary damages (actual or statutory). Sometimes the threat of a copyright infringement suit may compel an infringer to release their source code rather than be ordered to pay damages, but sometimes not.
    - phonebanshee 5y ago
      That sounds like a very American thing to say. You're talking about Italian law here?
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      I'm not a lawyer, but how do software licenses differ from contracts and their stipulations? I'm under the impression that stipulations in legal contracts can be enforced by courts.
      - slavik81 5y ago
        I'm not a lawyer either, but I believe you are referring to specific performance [1], which is rarely required (at least in common law systems). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance
      - btilly 5y ago
        I'm not a lawyer, but I happen to know the answer to this under common law. Which is what applies to most of the USA (Louisiana being the exception), but doesn't apply to Italy. I have no idea about Italian law. A common law contract requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration. That is, one side must offer the contract. The other must accept it. And each must have some potential gain from it (consideration). Both sides are then bound by the agreement. The agreement can be quite complicated, for example it may bind the parties to resolving disputes with binding arbitration. A license is permission to do something under some conditions. If you break the license, you are without permission. The licensor can then pursue claims against you just as they could if no license ever existed. For example if you break a copyright license, the licensor can sue you for copyright infringement. But without an explicit agreement from you, they can't sue for anything else.
dheera 5y ago
Of course they are enforceable? They have been all along, how did the courts only find about it just now? Did they not get the memo like 20 years ago?
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  Courts regularly hold contracts unenforceable for various reasons. And the question of whether the license is a “contract” or something else also depends on jurisdiction. So no the legal enforceability of the GPL isn’t a priori obvious.
  - dheera 5y ago
    I meant to say, it is physically able to be enforced, therefore it is "enforceable", whether the law chooses to actually enforce it is another story. I guess the headline should be "Italian Courts decide to enforce" rather than "Italian Courts find out [about this new thing they could choose to enforce called open source]"
    - Uehreka 5y ago
      (IANAL, etc.) My understanding is that in legal contexts, the term “unenforceable” doesn’t necessarily refer to things that can’t be physically enforced in reality (like “the undersigned agrees to think about a white elephant once per day”) but to things that, if enforced, would violate a pre-existing law or part of the jurisdiction’s constitution (or equivalent “meta-law”). So if a country’s court decided that the owner of a piece of IP could license it to other people, but that they could not dictate the terms under which it would be redistributed (because that’s how “free speech” is interpreted in that country) then they would rule the GPL unenforceable in their country. This seems unlikely in most countries, but until it actually gets tested in a given country’s courts, it cannot be 100% ruled out. Most companies think the risk of the GPL standing up is high enough that they don’t want to be the ones to test it, so they comply.
      - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
heavyset_go 5y ago
Seems like that would incentivize companies to distribute (A)GPL software for MVPs, or longer than that, until they're forced to stop distributing the GPL software after losing lawsuits. There's no risk of losing their IP or products, they just need to change their dependencies if they get caught.
- dataflow 5y ago
  The flip side of that is, you could make an open source product under a license like MIT, then later quietly (A)GPL it and hope a company updates to the newer version without checking the license, because how many people check the license for every single commit they fetch? I don't know what the solution is but I'm guessing courts would consider any evidence of intent when making judgments.
  - the_pwner224 5y ago
    They can still use the older code under the license that it came with (MIT).
    - dataflow 5y ago
      That's not the question here. The question here is whether they should be compelled to release any code that they may have happened to distribute along with the GPL'd library that was previously under MIT, which would be what people here are asking for.
    - bombcar 5y ago
      What you do is release the new code under GPL with major security fixes and sue if they backport.
  - bottled_poe 5y ago
    This sounds intentionally deceptive and doubt it would hold much weight.
    - 5y ago
sfifs 5y ago
Yes because the license was terminated when the violating party violated the license and then also ignored the notice asking them to come into compliance. So the right judgement is to cause GPL code to be removed from the product.
- endgame 5y ago
  This is one of the things that GPLv3 fixes - there's a "self-healing" clause added. From section 8 of GPLv3 ("Termination"): > However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.
  - jkaplowitz 5y ago
    The new court ruling is already about the GPLv3 - the self-healing clause still allows a copyright holder to terminate the license of a violator if they choose to exercise part (a) of your quote after a notification of violation which meets the requirements to avoid part (b). I assume that the copyright holder chose this path because their notice requesting compliance was ignored.
garmaine 5y ago
What would you expect to happen otherwise? AFAIK this is exactly the same as happens in other court cases where the GPL has been tried.

hannasanarion 5y ago

T̶h̶a̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶t̶r̶u̶e̶.̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶l̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶t̶r̶a̶d̶i̶c̶t̶s̶ ̶i̶t̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶d̶e̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶"̶b̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶f̶t̶w̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶i̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶i̶c̶e̶n̶s̶e̶"̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶d̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶r̶e̶m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶G̶P̶L̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶o̶n̶e̶n̶t̶s̶,̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶c̶k̶n̶o̶w̶l̶e̶d̶g̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶G̶P̶L̶ ̶r̶e̶q̶u̶i̶r̶e̶s̶.̶ Don't mind me, just being a dummy :)

bdowling 5y ago
Thanks. A statement of the court's order was included in the "press release" link, not the link I originally posted. Link updated. > The Judge, considering the articles 156 I.d.a. and 700 c.p.c., > Orders the defendants (Marco Poglie, Francesco Pesce and Nerds Farm Srl) to cease any use made available to the public, as well as any publications, of the software named E-addons for Elementor, if not after having eliminated every recurrence (exception made for a maximum amount of 500 lines) of the code included in the 1.9.5.2 version of Dynamic Content for Elementor, sub doc.2 produced by the Applicant, within seven days of the communication of this provision. https://www.dynamic.ooo/press/groundbreaking-acknowledgment-of-free-software-in-italy/# https://www.dynamic.ooo/press/groundbreaking-acknowledgment-...
- edoceo 5y ago
  I don't understand the exception. Like less than 500 line chunks of GPL can stay? Or only chunks that are 500 or less must be removed in the time allowed?
  - aulin 5y ago
    From the italian version I understand max 500 lines of GPL code can stay... not sure about the reason, it can be quite a lot of code
- jaclaz 5y ago
  Only for the record (and IANAL), the second reference (Art.700 Codice Procedura Civile) is only related to the possibility - pending immediate financial loss - to get an accelerated/quick judgement. The decision lies on the first reference (Art. 156 Legge sul diritto d'Autore - Law on Author's rights), which is Legge 22 aprile 1941 n. 633: http://www.interlex.it/testi/l41_633.htm http://www.interlex.it/testi/l41_633.htm interestingly, the objects protected were originally literature, music, arts, architecture, theatre and photos/movies (and was later extended to include computer programs, television, etc.).
fsckboy 5y ago
what he said is true, and therefore what you said is less than true. the GPL requires source corresponding to distributed binaries be released. They distributed GPL binaries and they have not been required to release the source. They are allowed to make future binaries which are not GPLed, but the users of the GPLed binaries have not had their right to see the source satisfied.
- bdowling 5y ago
  > ...the users of the GPLed binaries have not had their right to see the source satisfied. That's the intent of the GPL (GPL v3 Preamble) but it's not an outcome that a license can guarantee. A copyright license can only be enforced using copyright law, and the remedies for copyright infringement are limited to monetary damages (actual or statutory). Sometimes the threat of a copyright infringement suit may compel an infringer to release their source code rather than be ordered to pay damages, but sometimes not.
  - phonebanshee 5y ago
    That sounds like a very American thing to say. You're talking about Italian law here?
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but how do software licenses differ from contracts and their stipulations? I'm under the impression that stipulations in legal contracts can be enforced by courts.
    - slavik81 5y ago
      I'm not a lawyer either, but I believe you are referring to specific performance [1], which is rarely required (at least in common law systems). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_performance
    - btilly 5y ago
      I'm not a lawyer, but I happen to know the answer to this under common law. Which is what applies to most of the USA (Louisiana being the exception), but doesn't apply to Italy. I have no idea about Italian law. A common law contract requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration. That is, one side must offer the contract. The other must accept it. And each must have some potential gain from it (consideration). Both sides are then bound by the agreement. The agreement can be quite complicated, for example it may bind the parties to resolving disputes with binding arbitration. A license is permission to do something under some conditions. If you break the license, you are without permission. The licensor can then pursue claims against you just as they could if no license ever existed. For example if you break a copyright license, the licensor can sue you for copyright infringement. But without an explicit agreement from you, they can't sue for anything else.

dheera 5y ago

Of course they are enforceable? They have been all along, how did the courts only find about it just now? Did they not get the memo like 20 years ago?

CogitoCogito 5y ago
Courts regularly hold contracts unenforceable for various reasons. And the question of whether the license is a “contract” or something else also depends on jurisdiction. So no the legal enforceability of the GPL isn’t a priori obvious.
- dheera 5y ago
  I meant to say, it is physically able to be enforced, therefore it is "enforceable", whether the law chooses to actually enforce it is another story. I guess the headline should be "Italian Courts decide to enforce" rather than "Italian Courts find out [about this new thing they could choose to enforce called open source]"
  - Uehreka 5y ago
    (IANAL, etc.) My understanding is that in legal contexts, the term “unenforceable” doesn’t necessarily refer to things that can’t be physically enforced in reality (like “the undersigned agrees to think about a white elephant once per day”) but to things that, if enforced, would violate a pre-existing law or part of the jurisdiction’s constitution (or equivalent “meta-law”). So if a country’s court decided that the owner of a piece of IP could license it to other people, but that they could not dictate the terms under which it would be redistributed (because that’s how “free speech” is interpreted in that country) then they would rule the GPL unenforceable in their country. This seems unlikely in most countries, but until it actually gets tested in a given country’s courts, it cannot be 100% ruled out. Most companies think the risk of the GPL standing up is high enough that they don’t want to be the ones to test it, so they comply.
    - GoblinSlayer 5y ago

heavyset_go 5y ago

Seems like that would incentivize companies to distribute (A)GPL software for MVPs, or longer than that, until they're forced to stop distributing the GPL software after losing lawsuits. There's no risk of losing their IP or products, they just need to change their dependencies if they get caught.

dataflow 5y ago
The flip side of that is, you could make an open source product under a license like MIT, then later quietly (A)GPL it and hope a company updates to the newer version without checking the license, because how many people check the license for every single commit they fetch? I don't know what the solution is but I'm guessing courts would consider any evidence of intent when making judgments.
- the_pwner224 5y ago
  They can still use the older code under the license that it came with (MIT).
  - dataflow 5y ago
    That's not the question here. The question here is whether they should be compelled to release any code that they may have happened to distribute along with the GPL'd library that was previously under MIT, which would be what people here are asking for.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    What you do is release the new code under GPL with major security fixes and sue if they backport.
- bottled_poe 5y ago
  This sounds intentionally deceptive and doubt it would hold much weight.
  - 5y ago

sfifs 5y ago

Yes because the license was terminated when the violating party violated the license and then also ignored the notice asking them to come into compliance. So the right judgement is to cause GPL code to be removed from the product.

endgame 5y ago
This is one of the things that GPLv3 fixes - there's a "self-healing" clause added. From section 8 of GPLv3 ("Termination"): > However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.
- jkaplowitz 5y ago
  The new court ruling is already about the GPLv3 - the self-healing clause still allows a copyright holder to terminate the license of a violator if they choose to exercise part (a) of your quote after a notification of violation which meets the requirements to avoid part (b). I assume that the copyright holder chose this path because their notice requesting compliance was ignored.

garmaine 5y ago

What would you expect to happen otherwise? AFAIK this is exactly the same as happens in other court cases where the GPL has been tried.